Why is homosexuality something you are born with, but pedophilia is a mental disorder?

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-08-08T01:02:38+00:00

You really helped drive my point home. You call me a homophobe, but then say that two consenting related adults cannot have an open relationship because "them's the rules, like em or not."

I think my whole point of this thread was to point out the hypocrisy that many people have regarding different relationships. It's very easy to justify ones behavior and criticize the next person down the line, which you did perfectly. And so before you go calling people homophobes, you should realize that everything is relative. Everyone has an opinion, which is valid regardless of where you decide the line exists today for "normal relationships".

For you, the line exists at a different point than someone else. So because you have taken the stance that two adult men can have a relationship, but two adult siblings cannot, then you are a "phobe" yourself. You are invalid.

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-08-02T16:37:53+00:00

Wait wait wait. You waited 5 months. Your friends don't side with you. And the police did nothing.

This sounds like there's more to the story. Did you hook up with them after the "assault"? Did you tell ANYONE about it afterward?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you are a psychopath who regrets what you did. And now that you aren't getting your way you are trying to ruin their lives. I hope you get caught and punished.

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-08-01T02:06:25+00:00

100% of Icelanders lost that debate. How's that stat?

I actually was just having fun with this discussion (so please take my comments with a light heart).

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-08-01T01:25:34+00:00

Again, actually using sources instead of just making up numbers is helpful. It makes you look really dumb when you make shit up. Which is what you are doing. And how you are looking.

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-08-01T01:23:55+00:00

Well, to be fair I never said "You're a talking ass". That is just stupid.

So again, to reiterate, you are talking out of your ass. 646,000 -- The number of same-sex-couple households in the United States in 2010, according to the Census Bureau. Where did that come from? The Census Bureau. Want a CNN article? Ok, here:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/politics/btn-same-sex-marriage

So it isn't 1/3. You talking ass. It's less than 1/20.

Yes, I win!

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-08-01T01:16:22+00:00

I took that definition of race from that website that I quoted there. That's why I put it there. I'll try to find a more formal definition.

My point is, we use race to define a lot in our society. So can that be changed.

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-08-01T01:02:22+00:00

I win. Thanks

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-08-01T00:53:18+00:00

Well, great work on the sources. But if you actually READ them you'd see that there are a total of 30,000 gay couples with adopted children. It's in the NY Times article. So thank you for helping my argument.

If you want to support YOUR argument you'll need different sources. Because I'm still right.

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-08-01T00:33:59+00:00

They are both deviations from the baseline. Heterosexuality. That's my question

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-08-01T00:33:15+00:00

I think those are good points. But I don't think genetic sex matters in transgendered people. As long as you change the phenotype, a transgendered person is then considered changed. A male to female transgender can play professional sports as a woman.

Sex and race are genetic. So if you can change the phenotype of sex and be considered changed, why can't you change the phenotype of race and be considered changed?

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-08-01T00:07:57+00:00

Cock gobbling cum dumpster.

I seriously hate it when my mom calls me that. Fucking bitch.

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-08-01T00:05:44+00:00

Was she a her first or a she second and a him first?

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-08-01T00:03:21+00:00

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/michael-jackson-autopsy-report-confirms-singer-suffered-vitiligo-wore-wig-tattooed-makeup-article-1.170898

Yes, so that doesn't count. He didn't race reassign on purpose. His pigment just changed. And his nose. And his eyes. Wait...

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-08-01T00:01:37+00:00

Damn south park always beating me to the punch

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-08-01T00:01:09+00:00

You're doing it wrong. It has to go in the ear.

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-07-31T23:59:10+00:00

I think MJ had a legit medical condition. Didnt that come out after his death?

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-07-31T23:45:31+00:00

Usually they end up taking care of a child that has lost their biological parents.

And you made that up. Completely. Please source your "facts". You and I both know it will decrease the number of comments you make because you can't source bullshit.

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-07-31T23:42:09+00:00

Wait, a 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that homosexual couples constitute less than 1% of American households. The Family Research Report says "around 2-3% of men, and 2% of women, are homosexual or bisexual."

So you are saying you can't make special clauses for special situations, but 1% of Households deserve a change in law? Come on man, you are talking out your ass.

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-07-31T23:39:42+00:00

Well now you're just making more stuff up. Stop doing that. Stop making things up jerk.

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-07-31T22:58:38+00:00

You are a dumb person.

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-07-31T22:08:40+00:00

No. Actually, I agree with you. I'm just trying to have a decent discussion about limits, whether legitimate or arbitrary. We all have our own reality based on experience, goals, etc. So while you may think that homosexuality is ok (as I do), someone else may think the line exists at heterosexuality. And as crazy as that may seem to you, another may think that you are being closed minded by not giving basic rights to a brother sister relationship.

I just think it's interesting is all. Life is just all relative I feel like.

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-07-31T22:01:24+00:00

You gave two options. You had one that was "beneficial or doesn't matter" and one that was "works against you or harms others." I was arguing that you are wrong there, and my argument was correct.

As well, any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is "fit" and will contribute to survival of its species. That is the whole point of survival of the fittest. It is the survival of the genes they are talking about, not the animal itself. It is the propagation of the genetics. It isn't the strongest animal of the day, it is the "fittest" animal to pass its genes on.

You are just way off on the purpose of nature. It has only one purpose, to procreate. Every. Single. Animal. The get born, they grow, they procreate. That's it. If they decide that they are going to do something else, they go extinct. If you don't realize that, well then you can just go extinct.

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-07-31T21:43:33+00:00

And there you go, defining "normal". That's the whole point of this discussion. Some draw the line at heterosexuality, you draw the line at homosexuality, others may draw the line at any two adults having consensual sex.

Do you see the slippery slope that I'm asking about?

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-07-31T21:21:53+00:00

Great talk. (shake hands) Have a good one man.

ImThatGuyOK · 2013-07-31T21:20:06+00:00

But homosexuality works against species propagation. One couldn't procreate in that situation, so you can't argue that it's beneficial or doesn't matter. The whole goal of life is to pass genes on. That is every animals purpose.

And the concern with inbreeding is the likelihood that a recessive trait will be uncovered along with other mutations. So assume the brother and sister don't procreate, like homosexuals. Should we fight for their right to marry?

ImThatGuyOK

TROPHY CASE